[gobolinux-users] Unionfs to replace sandbox?

Jonatan Liljedahl lijon at kymatica.com
Thu Oct 13 02:01:28 GMT 2005

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:51:07 -0700
Carlo Calica <ccalica at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/12/05, Jonatan Liljedahl <lijon at kymatica.com> wrote:
> > It feels a little bad that the only reason not to use symlinks for
> > modules are that modprobe can't allow symlinks. Is it hard to patch?
> >
> Agreed.  Add it to the list to look into.  Still need to special case
> unionfs
> > for X in $(cat /System/Settings/ModuleUnions); do
> >         [ -d $X ] && unionfs --append $X:ro
> > done
> >
> how about:
> for X in /Programs/*/Current/modules; do
>         [ -d $X ] && unionfs --append $X:ro
> done
> Only problem with that is if you want different versions at the same
> time.

I can't really see that would be a problem... it's not like libraries
where you want several version available for backward compatibility.

> Could have a /System/Links/ModuleDirs whose contents point to
> /P/Foo/1.0/modules.  Then run through that, read the symlink and add
> to the union.

Yes, that would be the same as a cache file but use symlinks instead of
a textfile... the unionfs stuff would then just be a generic
symlink-to-unionfs converter... =)

> Also need to worry about versioning modules to a specific kernel.

Yes... should be Current/Modules/kernel-version/ just like /S/K/M is...
Then we just check for a match against S/K/M/* and if so union mount it
NOTE that we can union mount /S/K/M on top of itself! (use it both as a
"device" and as a mountpoint).

/Jonatan    -=( http://kymatica.com )=-

More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list